Yup. It's clear to me that Pius V made his statement, and Paul VI, a successor to Peter with equal authority, made his own statement, too.
I don't happen to like the NO and it has been more troublesome than any other fruit of the Council--but the authority of the Pope cannot be questioned.
Patent also said in his earlier posting that "Vatican I made it quite clear that the Pope is the supreme judge in the Church on earth, his rulings are final."
My point is that when two popes make contradictory rulings, only one can be right regardless of their authority.
If a current pope can overrule the obvious intent of an earlier pope regarding the perpetual right of priests to say Mass in a specified manner, then no papal ruling is "final".
The pope said "in perpetuity" so either he (Pius V) or Paul VI is wrong. The other alternative is that we are mis-interpreting one or the other of them. Pius V's language is crystal clear. Paul VI's is not. I am inclined, therefore, to agree with the folks who say that Paul VI never formally abrogated the right of any priest to say the Mass using the 1570 Missal.
It probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway; since it appears as if the church is actually being run by bishops and cliques of bishops who don't give a hoot what the pope suggests or directs.